Case law

Christa Allen v. Richard Hinchman, M.D. Richard Tanner, M.D. and Jeffery Smith, M.D.

20 N.E.3d 863 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2014

Wilson was qualified to testify, we conclude that summary judgment was inappropriate. … Generally, in order to establish a claim of medical malpractice, the plaintiff must establish the following by expert medical testimony: 1) the applicable standard of care required by Indiana law; 2) how the defendant

Leonard v. Leonard

877 N.E.2d 896 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2007

Findings are clearly erroneous only when the record contains no facts to support them either directly or by inference. Id. A judgment is clearly erroneous if it applies the wrong legal standard to properly found facts. … Valuing a pension requires a court to determine (1) what evidence must be presented to establish the value of the benefit, (2) what date must be used to assign a dollar amount to the benefit, and (3) how much of the benefit

Wise v. Wise

109 Ind. App. 207 · Indiana Court of Appeals · May 26, 1941

The language of the will: “I give and bequeath to my daughter Ida Wise, my farm of one hundred and twenty acres” is qualified by the remainder of the sentence, “that is to say that my daughter shall have absolute possession … the intention of the testator • expressed in a will all parts of it must be taken into consideration, and if it be possible, without departing from his general purpose expressed in the instrument as a whole or violating established

Manufacturers Gas & Oil Co. v. Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co.

50 L.R.A. 768 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1900

The acts of 1891 and 1893 are an express recognition by the legislature of the qualified ownership of the common owners in the gas in the common reservoir, and any act therein forbidden may be, according to the circumstances … It does not appear from the complaint that there has been unreasonable delay on the part of the appellants in.seeking relief, and it is clearly shown that they have a special interest in the gas in the ground, and a right

Perry County, Indiana v. Keith D. Huck

Indiana Supreme Court · Jul 22, 2025

A person qualifies for temporary health insurance under COBRA after a “qualifying event” occurs. 29 U.S.C. § 1163. … But Huck does not qualify for COBRA because no qualifying event—such as termination or reduced hours— occurred here. See id. § 1163(2).

Stahl v. East Porter County School Corp.

981 F. Supp. 2d 805 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Nov 4, 2013

The motion must be accompanied by an affidavit of the offeror or the offeror’s attorney establishing the amount of the attorney’s fees and other costs and expenses *815 incurred by the offeror after the date of the qualified … to the recipient than the terms of the qualified settlement offer”).

Simington v. State

5 Ind. 479 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 6, 1854

R. 44; and it was held, that esquires, and other persons of higher degree, were not qualified under that act, although the son of such esquire, or other person of higher degree, was. … We are clearly of opinion that they will not.

CRAIG

District Court, S.D. Indiana · Jun 11, 2026

The Wayne County Circuit Court affirmed the Building Commission orders finding that the evidence presented at the hearings "clearly established that the [three properties] are unsafe to 1 AFG Investment Fund was the entity … The motion "will be successful only where the movant clearly establishes: (1) that the court committed a manifest error of law or fact, or (2) that newly discovered evidence precluded entry of judgment."

Kavanagh v. Butorac

140 Ind. App. 139 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1966

It was shown that his work was dependent upon good vision and that there were dangers in the handling of toxic serums and in immunization of animals. … Even the expert qualifies his testimony as to “properly” fastened and *156 we can assume different passengers will vary the interpretation of “properly.”

Gallagher v. Indiana State Election Board

579 N.E.2d 649 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1991

As a result, a resident of a voting precinet who is otherwise qualified cannot vote in the new precinet if he or she became a precinet resident within thirty days prior to an election. … Const. art. 2, § 2 is unambiguous and clearly does not provide a "day of record" for purposes of voting and to that extent we agree with the trial court.

Perez v. Bakel

862 N.E.2d 289 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 2007

If I have a weight hanging on the end of this established clot that is getting beaten on by this blood flow going by, it’s possible that that established clot can be dislodged and the whole kit and caboodle can go up toward … The court acknowledged that although Indiana Code Section 34-51-4-2 specifically precludes an award of prejudgment interest against the Patient’s Com *297 pensation Fund, there is no comparable provision immunizing health

Walker v. Rinck

604 N.E.2d 591 · Indiana Supreme Court · Dec 2, 1992

Clearly, the parents' conduct in conceiving children when knowledge of the Rh sensitization was an intervening, superseding cause of Nathan and Kathy's problems. 566 N.E.2d at 1090 (footnote omitted). … (Alleged failure of physicians to test mother for rubella and to immunize her against rubella prior to conception which caused injury to later-conceived child.)

Walker v. McTague

737 N.E.2d 404 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2000

the Walkers and McTague Properties entered into a stipulated entry for relief from stay, which was approved by the bankruptcy judge, providing that McTague Properties would have 120 days to market the business and seek a qualified … On review, we do not set aside the trial court’s findings or judgment unless they are clearly erroneous. Ind. Trial R. 52(A).

Bruck v. State Ex Rel. Money

228 Ind. 189 · Indiana Supreme Court · Mar 30, 1950

As applied to the powers of the states of the American Union, the term is also used to denote those inherent governmental powers, which, under the federal system established by the constitution of the United States, are reserved … In this they are each clearly distinguished from teacher tenure status in Indiana. In Indiana teacher tenure is wholly contractual. State ex rel. Anderson v. Brand, Trustee, 303 U. S. 95, 101 , 82 L.

United States v. Beaman

128 F. Supp. 2d 1188 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 16, 2001

Thus, while it has not specifically dealt with the burden of proof concerning U.S.S.G. § 2S1.3(b)(l)-(2), the Seventh Circuit has clearly established that the defendant bears the burden of proof when seeking a downward departure … Beaman does not qualify for a sentence reduction under § 2S1.3(b)(2)(D).

Daniels v. State

957 N.E.2d 1025 · Indiana Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 2011

To establish the element of fear, however, it is not necessary for the victim to testify that he or she was actually put in fear. Id. … Clearly, Daniels “displayed” the gun to Sharp when he deliberately lifted up his shirt to reveal to her that it was tucked into his waistband.

G.L.W. v. J.W.S. (mem. dec.)

Indiana Court of Appeals · May 7, 2020

FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be May 07 2020, 7:01 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing … As briefly discussed above, the evidence indicates that there are significant costs associated with H.W.’s attendance at Compass Rose that would not qualify as uninsured health care expenses.

Indiana Department of Revenue v. Kitchin Hospitality, LLC

907 N.E.2d 997 · Indiana Supreme Court · Jun 17, 2009

Thus, the burden was on Kitchin to establish its entitlement to the exemption. Id. … Where it appears that the Legislature amends a statute to express its original intention more clearly, the normal presumption that an amendment changes a statute's meaning does not apply. See Ind.

Miller v. United States

577 F. Supp. 980 · District Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 20, 1984

At the top of page one of the purported return, the plaintiff requested immunity before waiving his constitutional rights. … Finally, the § 6702 penalty can “be imposed against any individual filing a ‘return’ showing an incorrect tax due, or a reduced tax due, because of the individual’s claim of a clearly unallowable deduction.”

Michigan City v. Hays-Republic Corporation

District Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 2020

The standard for whether an objectively reasonable basis exists is not unlike the standard determining qualified immunity for state officials. See Wolf, 574 F.3d at 411. … “[J]ust as the qualified immunity doctrine attempts to protect zealous law enforcement, the removal statute encourages litigants to make liberal use of federal courts, so long as the right to remove is not abused.”